The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-06-16
DIR. CARROLL.
Did He Quote Jefferson Fairly?
Was jefferson a Prohibitionist.


It soon became evident that you had
impressed a great many of your hearers
with the conviction, that Mr.. Jefferson's
views were as you represented them to be.
To make good your assertion, you REFER,
70 four or five distinct writings of his.
First, my ear caught the name of
NJ. De Melville, when you represented
jefferson IN your letter to that distin-
guished Frenchman as pronouucing
whisky poison; and, therefore, as you
helped your audience to infer, thing to
be put under ban of outlawry.
You were here advocating a constitu-
tionGl amendment to stop the manu-
facture, sale aid exchange of distilled
liquors, wine and beer. except for certain
specified purposes. That was your text.
That was the subject of your discourse.
When, therefore, you represented Mr.. eff
ferson as a prohibitiOnist, we are justified
in assuming that you intended TO represent
him as favoring such an enactment, as is
now submitted to the people of Texas.
The prohibition part of your au-
d1ence so understood you, so
believed you and SO applauded you with
earnest sympathy.
l had recently read that interesting
letter, and understood why you had use
for only four or five words-enough TO
take in, as twin associates, the word
poison" and the word 'whisky," so as to
make the impression you intended to
make. You had to start in at the middle
of short sentence to avoid letting your
admiring friends know, that Jefferson was
in thai very breath condemning the prac-
l. a 4 - hat Itpl
from the high duty laid upon it, The
whole context shows that jefferson was
only conGemning whisky by comparison,
aud that he had no idea of pro
posing a legal prohibition of it,
10 his letter to Lake, an Indian chief, he
recognizes, with approval, the general
rule that men may sell what individuals
wish to buy, 'leaving to every one'-these
are his words, "to be the guardian of his
own health and happiness" He treated
the Indians as III state of pupllage, gen
orally addressing them as my children"
he being their Great Father" and sub
iect, of course, to restrictions which would,
not in ordinary conditions be thought of
for free adult citizens.
| now Juote-not for your Information,
but to open the eyes of hundreds who lis
tened in honest good faith to your four
word extract from the De Neuyiile letter
all that Mr.. jefferson says therein on the
subjecy of liquor.
Il rejoice, as moralist at the pros
pect of reduction of the duties on wine,
by our national legislature. 1t is an error
to view n tax on that liquor as merely
tax On the rich. 1t is prohibition of its
use to the middle class of our citizens,
and a condemnation of them to the
poison Of whisky, which is desoIatlng
their houses. No nation Is drunken
where wine is cheap; and none sober
where the dearness Ct wine substitutes
ardent spirits as the common beverage.
1t is in truth the only antidote to the
bane of whisky. Fix but the duty at the
rate of other merchandise, and we can
drink wine here as cheap as we
do grog; and who will not prefer
it? Its extended use Will carry
health and comfort to much
enlarged circle. Every one in easy cir
cumstances las the bulk of our citizens
are) will prefer it to the poison to which
they are now driven by their government.
And the treasury itself will find that
penny apiece from dozen, is more than
Croat from a single one. This lntor-
nation, however, will require time. Our
merchants know nothing of the infinite
variety of cheap and good wines to be
had in Europe; and particularly In France,
in Italy and the Grecian islands"
After referring to and quoting from TINS
letter in the manner l have stated, to
make jefferson out a prohibitionlst, you
said that III another letter he classed
drunkards with gamblers and maniacs as
requiring restrictive measures to save
him from the fatal infatuatlon under
which he is destroying his health his
morals, his family, etc. You quoted just
enough to make your hearers suppose
that by "restrictive measures Jefferson
had in view prohibition substantially as
you now propose it.
have hunted up the letter, and will
show that jefferson was really advocating
a thing of which you prohibitionists have
particular horror-a high license He
thought high license would OPP
crate TO some extent, incidentally,
as a prohibition on the imbecile, hope
less drunkards, and as check on excessive
indulgence by the mass of citizens, but not
as a direct, positive aud absolute prohibi-
ton.
In this, humhly think Mr.. Jefferson
gives up Jeffersonian principle, as the
modern high Licenses do, but still, he Is
wide apart as the poles from you modern
prohibitioulsts.
The letter is to Con. S. Smith, p. 2S4.
volt, Jefferson's works, and quote as fol-
lows
"But the prostration of body and mind,
which the cheapness of this liquor Is
spreading through the mass of our citizens
now calls the attention of the legislator,
or very different priuciple-on of his
important duties as a guardian of those
who. from cadses, susceptible Gnsns-
ceptible on W. NJ. b. of precise definition,
cannot take care of themselves. Such are
infants, maniacs, gamblers, drunkards.
The last, as much as the maniac, requires
restrictive measures to save him from the
fatal iufatuation under which ne is destroy
ing his health. his morals, his family and
his usefulness to society. One powerful
obstacle to his ruiuous selt-indulgence
yould be a price beyond his competence.
As sanitary measure, therefore, it be
comes oae of duty in the public guar
dams" On this reasoning he advocates
tax of one-tourth of dollar gallon on
whisky.and reduction on wines, etc. He fur
Their saws: Foreign spirits, wines, teas, cof-
.TplA- e ns inn